Originally Posted by Lebell

I don't recall the philosophic schools that my reasoning stems from, but here you go:

1) No brainer. It is commonly accepted triage to save as many people as you can. Therefore it would be acceptable to give the five the antidote at the expense of the one (Greatest Good). BUT! I always try to get around such pesky problems. Would it be possible to give PART of the antidote to each, thus increasing the time to move them to another location where they could all be saved? (Not a part of the mental exercise I realize.)

2) Also, this has been worked out by many. People die of such organ failures all the time. It's called life. Sooner or later you and I will face death by this way or another. To prolong our lives at the expense of another is evil as it takes away the gift of life from someone else who wasn't facing their time to die.

So no. It would be evil to take the life of the one man to prolong the life of the five others.